Entertainment

Internet Law Prof Spells Doomsday For Web Innovation

First, let me express my deep appreciation for openness on the Web. Can’t say it enough, really. It’s what makes the cloud such a great place to travel. No question about that.

But I’m going to play devil’s advocate for the moment. I’ll say in response to the statements of Jonathan Zittrain made in his book, “The Future of the Internet - and How to Stop It,” that proprietary does have its place. Zittrain, in speaking to Brian Baker in a Newsweek interview, claims that some companies - his examples are Apple and Facebook, to name a couple - are stifling innovation. You know, because of all the closed developments and exclusive deals they arrange and so forth.

Which is really just a nonsensical position to have. I will agree very much with any statement that pegs some technology giants of the world as uncompetitive, to varying degrees. Several much more so than others. But looking at the progress made within, say, the past 5-10 years among Internet developments, new and old, there’s little evidence, if any, that innovation hasn’t been delivered in abundance, even with closed systems playing champions in various markets.

For example, it’s been only five years since the debut of Apple’s iTunes Store. In that time, the music industry has effectively had its business model turned on its face. 99-cent for a single, any single? I would say that’s some handy innovation, albeit quite belated. And in that time we’ve seen copy protection technologies effectively left for dead by many online outlets. (It is only the insistence of record companies to saddle the majority of the iTunes library with DRM to accelerate the growth of competitors to the Apple-made juggernaut that keeps such locks in place.) These aren’t small changes. And again, they’ve occurred in the span of just five years. That’s a rather short time in which to cause such a shift, wouldn’t you say?

Keeping to the Apple theme, Zittrain places the company’s iPhone software developer kit, or SDK, in the category of bad omens. He thinks it is unfortunate that Steve Jobs can dictate which software is allowed for distribution to iPhone owners come June, given that Apple will command control over a filter through which developers will make submissions for official approval. My question is, if that were not the case, what would happen? The iPhone would be subject to misbehavior from third parties. Now, ideally, such openness could be good. A totally free market is a nice concept to consider. But this is Apple’s baby. Unless the company deceives consumers into believing it is an open platform when it is not, Cupertino can do as it wishes, whether to its benefit or to ill effect.

As for Zittrain’s somewhat understated attack on Facebook’s third-party development model, in which he says that the network reserves the right “to kill any app they don’t like and to control the flow of data,” I would pose the opposite point. What if Facebook were unable to kill any app? What if developers (both kind, gentle or malevolent varieties) could be allowed free reign to do as they wish? Such a reality could portend disaster, no? So which is the safer bet? Control, or none? Sure, there’s gray area there, but I would err on the side of caution, as I think most developers would, too. They’d likely hate to see Facebook spoiled by unruly seeds.

My position is a rather simple one, and perhaps you’ll agree. It is that there need to be some checks and balances, both on the part of the consumer and developer classes as well as the primary hardware and/or software providers. No party can have unchallenged freedom. Zittrain almost seems to believe in technological perfection, felling that all gears, given the chance to move as they please, will somehow synchronize. Unfortunately, human nature is to exhibit fault. This goes for big bad Apple, and Facebook, and Microsoft, as well as the independent Web developer making the next killer application.

So this openness agenda? Yes, it needs to be promoted. Heavily. Corporate collaboration is necessary to move us forward into the next decade. Sharing in a pool of knowledge won’t dilute competition. It’ll simply democratize it further. The whole may-the-best-developer-win thing will still be in play. The marketplace won’t be perfectly fair to all. It never is. But it’ll be more just than it is today.

Yet I’ll also say that proprietary isn’t a negative. It’s part of the way we work. If nothing were proprietary, no one would have an incentive to innovate. Because there would be no substantive returns for any one party. The market would be completely flattened to the point of no one nowhere having any advantage, and thus no one would pursue any new developments. And that would be bad. Real bad. So this idea put forth by Zittrain (and many others, I might add) that closed systems are antithetical to progress is utter hubris. Again, proprietary isn’t perfect. But it’s a far more appealing option to the anything-goes mantra. Way more.

Mashable
is a global, multi-platform media and entertainment company. Powered by its own proprietary technology, Mashable is the go-to source for tech, digital culture and entertainment content for its dedicated and influential audience around the globe.